Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[blü 2]

You would have to be able to come to a logical conclusion that realities, apart and beyond our own, must, by necessity exist.

What test do you have in mind to tell whether some or other particular state of affairs is real or not?

Namely an Unconditioned reality of infinite eternal, inerrant intelligence, and inerrant, perfect virtue.

Those are all imaginary qualities, for a start.

The Unconditioned reality would be also perpetual, and self sufficiently independent for its own existence.

What exactly is an "Unconditioned reality" (in the light of your answer to the first question)?

The Unconditioned reality must be infinite in all directions.

That too is imaginary. There are no infinities in nature.

You must prove that our existence is contingent upon that foundational reality.

Translation?

God would be of that reality.

Which brings us back to question 1.

 

[blü 2]

Great Question

From what I have found I see God can never be comprehended by our limited mind. Any concept we can have of God are but thoughts given to us from the way God has chosen to make his 'Self' known to us.

Seriously, doesn't that mean that to talk of God is to have no idea what you're talking about and no way of finding out?

 

[osgart]

What test do you have in mind to tell whether some or other particular state of affairs is real or not?
Those are all imaginary qualities, for a start.
What exactly is an "Unconditioned reality" (in the light of your answer to the first question)?
That too is imaginary. There are no infinities in nature.
Translation?
Which brings us back to question 1.

An unconditioned reality is independently self sufficient and eternal for its own existence. It has no beginning and no end. It is not made nor is it contingent upon any other form of existence.

Also, I would not call virtues imaginary. Perfect honesty is a characteristic of being. One who is perfectly honest will tell you only what he/she judges that which you deserve to know, no more and no less.

 

[osgart]

What test do you have in mind to tell whether some or other particular state of affairs is real or not?
Those are all imaginary qualities, for a start.
What exactly is an "Unconditioned reality" (in the light of your answer to the first question)?
That too is imaginary. There are no infinities in nature.
Translation?
Which brings us back to question 1.

Reality beyond our own would have to be understood by logical deductions. If the universe is contingent then there must be an eternal foundation that initiates it.

To me it is presumptuous to consider infinity to be a fiction. If existence is, then there cannot be nothingness beyond it.

 

[rational experiences]

Our human self, bio life. We know that we are human, use our own words to define how we express living as a human....and said that we came from a place that owned no beginning and also no end.

As a human, consciousness.

And a human word thinker said I will name that condition eternal..it always had existed, always did exist, spirit lives in eternal as it self form....and creation was a changed portion of that body.

Then we can give the same concept to God O the angel body. Stone.

Stone owns no beginning for it never existed as stone before it did...and it owns no end for it is stone. If you wanted to end stone, you would remove it and make nothing.

God can create nothing says a human, yet the human removed God in science conversion to use up the spirit or energy of God.

Therefore we say God is energy in science.

A Sun consumes energy, so does not create energy, it removes energy.

We live consuming energy as a human for live on food, being microbes that were created energy in water. Bio energy.

Life exists says science in biology after microbes as a status of giving detail analogies.

Conversion scientists therefore own no argument in natural sciences, yet they argue and claim that we began as an evil being, such as a alien or a devil.

Quoting evil inside of out atmosphere via science conditions, gases burning and falling out.

Therefore rationally evil can only come from some other place outside of our natural burning gases that should not fall out...for they own natural light existence by water ground evaporation to cool gas.

If a human says to science, my life was abducted by aliens, then it owns variations to the concepts of what a conscious self is caused to interact with....being advice from vision, from interactive causes and feed back.

Like watching a movie as separate to your own self, yet also seeing self harmed.

And only extra communicating conditions can infiltrate Earth and natural life with what is termed the seeding effect...meaning increased metallic radiation communicators, AI.

Which states a cloning process...that first involves females being aware that the cell of life, babies are being changed....and the ovary gets attacked. I know I lived it with ovarian cysts. So humans then state, we are being cloned in a science condition, for the consciousness is notified and identifies information as a psychic, so is informed correctly.

For science is causing our alienation, what is not a God concept. By trying to claim that God is outside of what God actually is, just stone.

We know that the UFO metal penetrates the atmosphere by its presence, so our psyche says, our spirit body has been penetrated.

Radiation is a metal so when it tries to push through our bodies by increased mass, not only is it painful, it can physically change our cells.

And we see what abduction is causing, by our gases, water and oxygen/microbial energy being taken into the radiation/ufo ship...by the forming of the body of the anti state.

As we are self cell replacing in our bodies, we then see a variety of information that is involved in the causes. Such as human males having been the scientist that owns nuclear changes, so humans are seen in the visions of the attack..due to own thinking relating to nuclear states. And the fact that they own their male human life body due to the human female ovary.

Sexual activity is how we identify our own conscious concepts of why we are born, born as a baby, and own our health. And all of these concepts are changed when we are irradiated.

It is why we knew and said that we are not God, the history and story of why stone exists. And that we are not any evil spirit or alien/devil condition that comes from outside of God...meaning from space.

For God not only created and owned the body of no space as MASS...the gases from God the stone filled in empty space with its own spirit....gases.

Why we always knew we did not come from out of space....but evil did.

 

[blü 2]

An unconditioned reality is independently self sufficient and eternal for its own existence. It has no beginning and no end. It is not made nor is it contingent upon any other form of existence.

It's also imaginary.

Also, I would not call virtues imaginary.

'Virtue' and the particular virtues like 'honesty', 'generosity', 'kindness' and so on, are all abstractions from sets of examples of conduct which in the judgment of the onlooker display or involve the virtue involved ─ handing in the wallet (honesty), giving an atypically large amount to a cause or needy person (generosity), looking after the neighbor's children when the neighbor is indisposed (kindness) and so on.

As abstractions, the virtues don't have objective existence, only existence as concepts in a brain, but the instances of them may (I say 'may' because judgment is involved in each case).

 

[rational experiences]

Reality beyond our own would have to be understood by logical deductions. If the universe is contingent then there must be an eternal foundation that initiates it.

To me it is presumptuous to consider infinity to be a fiction. If existence is, then there cannot be nothingness beyond it.

We know that mass takes up space. So where mass exists, you cannot move through it. To make a space, you have to remove mass to own that space existing.

Yet a space on Earth says, it is not complete space for we live inside of gases that came out of the stone. What the mind says, as a displaced idea.

Eternal what had always existed, lost a portion of it into the space forming, and mass took up change by expanding its space first in heat, to then consuming by heat to open more space. So space proves that it once owned eternal mass. Now eternal mass demonstrates that it owns and holds space inside of its own body....for circular pressure to exist to hold circular bodies....proving that space is also just a hole.

space
[speɪs]
NOUN

1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
   "a table took up much of the space" · 
   room · expanse · extent · 
   period · span · time · duration · stretch · course · interval · season · term

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Seriously, doesn't that mean that to talk of God is to have no idea what you're talking about and no way of finding out?

About the Essence of God, yes the way is bared.

The attributes of God, no, as that is the Messengers, that is their reality, the Self of God amongst us and all we will know of God. They give us our potential, the image we are born in.

Regards Tony

 

[Curious George]

There's no problem with imaginary immaterial or supernatural beings and things ─ they can be whatever pleases the imaginer. The problem is to define a real god.

Oh, i didn't say immaterial. I believe last time we had this discussion your issue was that a "super scientist" or alien could fit within my definition of god, and you therefore deemed the definition not god worthy. Ignoring that one would need a god concept to articulate such a sentiment, you have been given a coherent god concept. By an atheist, nonetheless.

For example?

Information

 

[Curious George]

Would you mind elaborating? What God concept have you proposed?

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

That work for you?

 

[Spirit of Light]

As human beings, we will not understand God the same way, no matter what we try. in my understanding, this is because we come from different backgrounds, and we come from different teaching of what God is.
Another thing is that the spiritual wisdom needed to understand God can only be cultivated over time, so even a person's understanding of God today will change during this person's life.
So in a way, discussing what or who God is, can never lead to understanding the true nature of God.

 

[Curious George]

As human beings, we will not understand God the same way, no matter what we try. in my understanding, this is because we come from different backgrounds, and we come from different teaching of what God is.
Another thing is that the spiritual wisdom needed to understand God can only be cultivated over time, so even a person's understanding of God today will change during this person's life.
So in a way, discussing what or who God is, can never lead to understanding the true nature of God.

As human beings we will never understand red in the same way, no matter what we try...

So in a way, discussing who or what red is can never lead to understanding the true nature of red.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As human beings we will never understand red in the same way, no matter what we try...

So in a way, discussing who or what red is can never lead to understanding the true nature of red.

Yes, this is also true. we are all different and we have our own individual understanding both of this physical existence (with colors too) and the spiritual realm that in my understanding can not be proven by science and thereby will always be a subject of misunderstanding and mockery from those who are not spiritual adapted in life.

 

[osgart]

It's also imaginary.
'Virtue' and the particular virtues like 'honesty', 'generosity', 'kindness' and so on, are all abstractions from sets of examples of conduct which in the judgment of the onlooker display or involve the virtue involved ─ handing in the wallet (honesty), giving an atypically large amount to a cause or needy person (generosity), looking after the neighbor's children when the neighbor is indisposed (kindness) and so on.

As abstractions, the virtues don't have objective existence, only existence as concepts in a brain, but the instances of them may (I say 'may' because judgment is involved in each case).

I can introspect my own motivations and intentions and find that at heart I desire to be honest rather than deceitful. The observations can key me into that which I desire to be. But moreso I am cognizant of how I can love, or hate respond to certain characteristics of being. Introspection can be very difficult, or not. But a person can come to know their own qualities that come to be their own true nature.

One introspection I do is to rehearse scenarios in my imagination.

I find that meanings such as honesty are very much realities regardless of judgment errors I may have. The intent is there even if I exercised it in a faulty way. An inerrant intelligence would assess deserve perfectly. Humans are prone to fallibilities in this regard I feel. But the language about virtues is necessary stuff.

I'm rather amazed that people can discover the qualities of virtues in their own selves if they are so inclined. Like mathematics, is virtue invented or discovered?

 

[rational experiences]

I can introspect my own motivations and intentions and find that at heart I desire to be honest rather than deceitful. The observations can key me into that which I desire to be. But moreso I am cognizant of how I can love, or hate respond to certain characteristics of being. Introspection can be very difficult, or not. But a person can come to know their own qualities that come to be their own true nature.

One introspection I do is to rehearse scenarios in my imagination.

I find that meanings such as honesty are very much realities regardless of judgment errors I may have. The intent is there even if I exercised it in a faulty way. An inerrant intelligence would assess deserve perfectly. Humans are prone to fallibilities in this regard I feel. But the language about virtues is necessary stuff.

I'm rather amazed that people can discover the qualities of virtues in their own selves if they are so inclined. Like mathematics, is virtue invented or discovered?

Humans infer that mathematics exists in Nature without their presence, human existing.

And how could that be pertinent in proof of conditions that are only human involved and human applied for human reasons, which are just rationally human?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm starting this thread as a jumping-off point from a discussion that @blü 2 and I have been having here:

Why are you an Atheist?

Blu said:



If I understand the point correctly, the argument is that anything real, anything that exists, has defining features that we can identify if we look out in the world for them - presumably physical features. Since God is generally proposed to be non-physical, it seems incoherent to say God(s) "exist(s)" as anything more than a concept in our minds.

So, if you believe in God(s), in what sense does he "exist?" What defining features could we identify her/him/it/they by? Is it coherent to say that something non-physical exists outside our minds?

Particularly interested in thoughts from @atanu, @PureX, and @Vouthon, but all are welcome to participate.

I'm not here in an attempt to prove God or even suggest that God exists, but rather to point out a potential flaw in the argument.

If it's being suggested that it's incoherent to say that God exists, is it also incoherent to say that dark matter exists? If not, where does the difference in the two suggestions lie?

 

[osgart]

Humans infer that mathematics exists in Nature without their presence, human existing.

And how could that be pertinent in proof of conditions that are only human involved and human applied for human reasons, which are just rationally human?

Why should human reasoning be effective whatsoever? Yet it is.

Concepts are based in reality often. Whether math or language, concepts are often accurate or trueish representations of real situations, real characteristics.

Outside of being human what is reality? Am I to think that reality at its core is unintelligible?

Humans creating babble. There are rules to making life worthwhile. Sense rules not senselessness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, if God is real then God exists in nature, hence has a description appropriate to a natural thing. If God exists only in the mentation of the individual, as a concept or thing imagined, then God is not real.

Would you consider a thought to be real?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hi George!

I don't think there is necessarily one atheist answer to that question. All the evidence I'm aware of to date indicates that consciousness is a function of brain activity. What makes you say that we can't understand consciousness physically? Granted, we don't have all the details worked out. But I'm curious how you determined such a thing is impossible?

I think he's referring to the hard problem of consciousness.

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia


Also, there's a difference in how 'consciousness' is conceptualized between eastern thought and western thought. Here's a link to an article that explains the difference:

"Critical Inquiry into Eastern and Western Perspective of Consciousness" by Yadav, Vikas - International Journal of Education and Management Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 4, December 2015 | Online Research Library: Questia

 

[blü 2]

About the Essence of God, yes the way is bared.

The attributes of God, no, as that is the Messengers, that is their reality, the Self of God amongst us and all we will know of God. They give us our potential, the image we are born in.

Thanks.